International Journal of Applied Educational Studies

Services for students with disabilities are mandated under United States federal law as delineated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The plan for providing these services is referred to as the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Since the IEP document outlines to both general and special education teachers how to specifically work and accommodate for instruction, it serves as a vital guide. Teachers in a suburban high school participated in utilizing a rubric to assess the compliance of the IEP document. Researchers made use of inservice training to guide a group of teachers in the use of a rubric designed to assess IEP compliance with recent changes in IDEA. Results of the study indicated that IEP documents did not consistently include all requirements under IDEA 2004. The study concludes that educators need further training on IEP development to assure compliance with IDEA mandates.

Bingham, C., Dillon, S. R., & McCaughtry, N. A. (2009, March). In the dark: Physical education teachers’ perceptions of the IEP. Poster session presented at the AAHPERD National Convention and Exposition, Washington, DC.

Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2006). Including high school students with severe disabilities in general education classes: Perspectives of general and special educators, paraprofessionals, and administrators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(2), 174–185.

Fiedler, J. F., & Knight, R. R. (1986). Congruence between assessed needs and IEP goals of identified behaviorally disabled students. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 22–27.

Gartin, B. C., & Murdick, N. L. (2005). IDEA 2004: The IEP. Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 327–331.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (2004).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, H.R. 1350, 108th Congress (2004).

Lee-Tarver, A. (2006). Are individualized education plans a good thing? A survey of teachers’ perceptions of the utility of IEPs in regular education. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 263–272.

Lynch, E. C., & Beare, P. L. (1990). The quality of IEP objectives and their relevance to instruction for students with mental retardation and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 11(2), 48–55.

Martin, J. K., Huber Marshall, L., & Sale, P. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 285–297.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

Simon, J. B. (2006). Perceptions of the IEP requirement. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 17–27.

Smith, S. W., & Simpson, R. L. (1989). An analysis of individualized education programs (IEPs) for students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 14, 107–116.

Yell, M. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2003). Developing legally correct and educationally meaningful IEPs using curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 73–88.